Democrats Shift on Military Cutbacks

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.
To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

House Democrats said today that they had reached a consensus to forgo deep cuts in military spending for the next fiscal year and to seek more dramatic reductions in spending for future years.

''There is a great deal of unity and unanimity in the approach that is going to be used,'' said Speaker Thomas S. Foley, Democrat of Washington. ''There is a solid consensus that we ought to approach it on a multiyear basis.''

The approach would place more emphasis than the Bush Administration budget does on cutting major strategic weapons programs, and it would reduce troop strength more gradually than liberal Democrats initially envisioned.

Force reductions and base closings are politically painful, and the House Democratic strategy contemplates some form of economic or job retraining assistance to military personnel and communities that would be affected. Major weapons programs that would be cut back sharply in the future include the B-2 bomber, the MX and Midgetman missiles and the proposed shield against a missile attack.

The decisions, thrashed out in two days of closed-door meetings, have not yet produced agreement between conservative and liberal House Democrats on an actual military spending figure, and there is not yet a clear picture of how the budget changes would translate into a revised defense strategy.

''What has happened is a very important first step in getting the kind of consensus we will need for arriving at defense number,'' said Representative Leon E. Panetta, the California Democrat who heads the House Budget Committee. ''But there are a lot of hoops we will need to go through before we reach that point.''

The agreement, such as it is, represents something of a retreat for House liberals, who had hoped to see big military savings in the upcoming 1991 budget year.

Approach Called Impossible

Over the past several weeks, more conservative Democrats, including Representative Les Aspin of Wisconsin, who heads the House Armed Services Committee, and Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, who heads the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, have convinced their liberal colleagues that such an approach was both politically and logistically impossible.

Mr. Panetta said the most difficult task had been getting liberal lawmakers to understand that even the termination of every major weapons program would not produce immediate savings in the military budget. ''What you now have is a building consensus where liberals recognize that significant reductions will take a period of time to achieve, but will be much more meaningful,'' he said.

At the same time, he added, conservatives are more comfortable because they see a ''responsible transition'' to lower military spending. ''The most encouraging thing to come out of the meetings is that for the first time you will be able to have liberals and conservatives going to the floor and defending the same military budget,'' he said.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

A united front is particularly important for House Democrats this year, because leaders believe they will have to pass the budget with little support from House Republicans.

The Democratic Approach

The budget strategy means that Democrats will be looking to spend from $290 billion to $296 billion on military programs in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The figures reflect the portion of the military budget known as outlays. President Bush has proposed an outlay figure of $303 billion.

Under the House Democratic approach, the much larger cuts would come in the portion of the budget known as budget authority. Mr. Bush has proposed a budget authority figure for fiscal 1991 of $306.4 billion, and House Democrats are looking at figure that could be as low as $282 billion.

''I think there is an understanding that the defense bill is driven by budget authority primarily and that immediate, very deep reductions in budget outlays are difficult,'' Mr. Foley told reporters. ''But over time, there is going to be a significant reduction in the defense budget.''

In today's closed-door meeting of 155 House Democrats, Mr. Aspin outlined some examples of the kinds of savings that could be expected from various combinations of troops and weapons cuts. Mr. Aspin said that reducing Army and Air Force troop strength in Europe by 80,000 in the 1991 fiscal year would save $1.5 billion in military outlays for that year and $18.9 billion by fiscal 1995.

Troop cuts of 155,000 by fiscal 1993 would save only slightly more in the 1991 fiscal year - an estimated $1.6 billion - but would save $48.1 billion by fiscal 1995.

Halting production of the B-2 bomber after this year but completing research and development for 15 of the planes would save $200 million in fiscal 1991 and $17.6 billion by fiscal 1995. Terminating all money for the bomber would save $1 billion in fiscal 1991 and $21.4 billion by fiscal 1995.

Terminating the rail-mounted MX missile program and MX missile production would save $800 million in fiscal 1991 and $6.5 billion by fiscal 1995. Terminating the Midgetman missile program would save $100 million in fiscal 1991 outlays and $2.3 billion in outlays by fiscal 1995.

A version of this article appears in print on March 15, 1990, on Page A00018 of the National edition with the headline: Democrats Shift on Military Cutbacks. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe